The feds should avoid giving SpaceX a monopoly on space tech

Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees met last week to reconcile differences between the House and Senate annual defense policy bills. One controversial issue still before them is Section 1615 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Agreement (NDAA), which would effectively give SpaceX control of the advancement of new space launch systems, eliminating its competition in a narrow market and handing it an effective monopoly.

Unfortunately, the measure would severely limit the U.S. government's future contracting options, and it would cause prices to skyrocket.

We arrived at this point in large part because of the government's decision, after Russia's annexation of Crimea, to phase out the use of Russian engines by 2022. One of the two most affordable space launch vehicles on the market, United Launch Alliance's Atlas V, uses Russian engines. U.S. Code requires “the availability of at least two space launch vehicles (or family of space launch vehicles) capable of delivering into space any payload designated by the secretary of Defense or the director of National Intelligence as a national security payload.”

But if Section 1615 of the NDAA goes into effect, the U.S. government can only choose between the Falcon 9 and the very expensive Delta IV.

Interests as diverse as the Air Force, the Trump administration, the Pentagon, and former Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul are united in opposition to Section 1615. The Air Force has said that it would force them to rely on a launch vehicle that is at least 30 percent more costly than others, and that "mandating this arrangement ... handicaps the Air Force’s eyes and ears in space, as the space community is forced to sacrifice on-orbit capability to fund exorbitant launch costs on a Delta IV Heavy.”

The Trump administration added that section 1615 "limits domestic competition, which will increase taxpayer costs by several billions of dollars through FY 2027 and stifle innovation."

Those who support Section 1615 say there's no reason to fear loss of competition because new engines are already being developed, but the Pentagon has said that creating a substitute engine "would require extensive design and engineering changes, as well as significant dynamic and acoustic testing, and would ultimately result in a new launch system, which would require recertification,” a laborious and expensive process.

Choices in the marketplace help to keep high quality options open and prices low, a fact members of Congress should keep in mind as they consider their options going forward.

Barbara Boland is a former communications director for Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) and former editor for the Washington Examiner. She is also the author of “Patton Uncovered,” a book looking at how Gen. George S. Patton became the most respected and feared American general in World War II.